Lena v. People of the State of California et al

Filing 16

ORDER for Plaintiff to Respond to the Screening Order, signed by Magistrate Judge Sheila K. Oberto on 03/22/17.( 21-Day Deadline) (Attachments: # 1 Amended Complaint Form, # 2 Screening Order, dated 10/25/2016)(Martin-Gill, S)

1
2
3

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

4

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

5
6

MICHAEL ANGELO LENA,

7

Plaintiff,

8
9

Case No. 1:16-cv-01036-LJO-SKO (PC)
ORDER FOR PLAINTIFF TO RESPOND
TO THE SCREENING ORDER

v.
PEOPLE OF THE STATE OF
CALIFORNIA, et al.,

10

TWENTY-ONE (21) DAY DEADLINE
Defendants.

11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

Plaintiff, Michael Angelo Lena, is a state prisoner proceeding pro se and in forma
pauperis in this civil rights action pursuant to 42 U.S.C. ' 1983. On October 25, 2016, the Court
issued a screening order regarding Plaintiff’s civil rights complaint, ordering Plaintiff file within
thirty days to either file: (1) an amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the Court
in its order, or (2) a notice that he would proceed on the two cognizable claims in his original
complaint. (Doc. 8.) The Court further notified Plaintiff that his failure to comply with this order
would result in dismissal of the action. (Id.) Plaintiff did not file a response to the screening
order.
On December 13, 2016, the Court issued an order to show cause (“OSC”) to Plaintiff
directing him to explain his failure to comply with the response deadline in the Court’s October
25, 2016 screening order. (Doc. 9.) Plaintiff filed his response on December 27, 2016, informing
the Court that he never received the Court’s October 25, 2016 screening order. (Doc. 10.) A
review of the Court’s docket revealed no record that the screening order was served on Plaintiff.
Thus, the OSC was discharged and the deadline for Plaintiff to respond to the screening order was
reset. (Doc. 11.) However, rather than respond to the screening order, Plaintiff filed an appeal
with the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeal. (Doc. 12.) The Ninth Circuit dismissed Plaintiff’s appeal
1

1

for lack of jurisdiction on March 20, 2017. (Doc. 15.) Thus, Plaintiff is required to respond to

2

the October 25, 2016 screening order.

3

Accordingly, it is HEREBY ORDERED that:

4

1.

The Clerk’s Office shall send Plaintiff an amended complaint form and another
copy of the October 25, 2016 screening order (Doc. 8);

5
2.

6

Within twenty-one (21) days from the date of service of this order, Plaintiff must

7

either:

8

a.

File a first amended complaint curing the deficiencies identified by the
Court in the October 25, 2016 screening order; or

9
b.

10

Notify the Court in writing that he is willing to proceed only on the two

11

claims found cognizable in the October 25, 2016 screening order for (i)

12

inhumane conditions of confinement, in violation of the Eighth

13

Amendment, against Doe Defendant Correctional Officers (“COs”), and

14

(ii) retaliation, in violation of the First Amendment, against Doe Defendant

15

COs; and
c.

16

If Plaintiff files a notice that he is willing to proceed only on the cognizable

17

claims, he must include all information available to him to identify the Doe

18

Defendant COs for service of process (i.e. their physical descriptions, yards

19

and times of their interaction with Plaintiff, and any documents containing

20

their identities);
3.

21

If Plaintiff fails to comply with this order, the Court will recommend the
action be dismissed for Plaintiff’s failure to obey a court order.

22
23
24
25

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

March 22, 2017

/s/

UNITED STATES MAGISTRATE JUDGE

26
27
28

Sheila K. Oberto

2

.